The recent article ‘Past sub mistakes make a case for going
nuclear’ by Dr Babbage in The Weekend Australian arose from the recent release
of 1985 Australian Government Cabinet papers including the Collins Class
Submarine Program decision involving Kim Beazley, currently Australia’s
Ambassador to the USA. For the current Future Submarine Program [FSP] the same
point in the acquisition process will occur in 2014,
after the federal election this year.
Dr Babbage asserts four points of similarity between the
1985 era and now. In addition to a tight fiscal outlook he notes:
- Confusion about what kind of a submarine force is required. This is contradicted by the clear statement in the 2009 Defence White Paper and confirmed in recent statements by the Minister
- Doubts about domestic industry capacity to build a new class of submarines at the same time as other naval shipbuilding programs and the ‘burgeoning offshore oil and gas industry.’ However there have been recent postponements in some offshore oil and gas projects reflecting changes in energy demand, and resolution of the naval shipbuilding programs is a matter for government to decide in 2014.
- Dr Babbage doubts that skills and facilities developed for local submarine construction are beneficial for life cycle sustainability, including maintenance, repair and overhaul. Most people with experience would disagree. In addition these same skills are needed from the start of complex projects such as the FSP to ensure maintainability and then to resolve issues in the first of class.
Dr Babbage notes that the strategic outlook has changed since 1985, but so has Australia’s need for greater self reliance in defence and national security. He points out that the US has a proven submarine program in full production from two shipyards and asserts that Australia should consider the case for sourcing FSP there. He does not elaborate on the significant lack of skills, infrastructure and time delays that this fifth option would entail
He concludes with his frequent assertion of inevitable cost and schedule overruns but without producing any new insights as to why these outcomes are unavoidable. A more reasoned understanding of these matters can be found in the recent Coles’ Review stage 3.